It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I don't know where people get this idea that going in a comedic direction has to mean Roger Moore 2.0. Is Craig just Dalton 2.0?
It doesn't make sense to me. A comedic Bond can feasible take many shapes and forms, just like a serious Bond can.
I don't think we'll get something like MR for Bond 26. It's a great little film, but it's very much spectacle driven to the point where much of the plot doesn't actually make sense when you try to think about it. Many of the scenarios are there to create the circumstances for action sequences, as well as move the plot from A to B. It doesn't matter if it it involves Bond trekking into the jungle for little other reason than he learns Drax has used a certain kind of orchid (which is a very tenuous link). It's all about the ride. It's something that could only come midway through a Bond actor's tenure I think as it's so self-assured, especially after TSWLM.
At the same time I don't think we're going to get something like QOS. Much like MR I think that confidence in its grittiness could only have come after the success of CR.
It's impossible to say definitely at the current time what we'll get. My guess is there'll be some element of going 'back to basics' in there. But that can mean many things (ie. is the set up for the story going to be a bit more espionage driven like FRWL or even DN? Or will it be a more 'formula driven' Bond film with Bond getting the traditional M briefing, getting his gadgets from Q? Does it mean we'll see a good splash of Fleming being adapted into the story? Maybe it'll be all those things).
I think we're going to get some consideration for Bond's character. For better or for worse one of the things I've heard talked about most positively about the Craig films are that Bond comes off as more human. Doesn't mean the same stuff will be recycled from those films (although there are always similar threads which make their way into these films, and of course that idea of 'humanising Bond' was there long before Craig). I think to some extent Bond's flaws will be highlighted even if his heroism is ultimately enforced, again much like the Craig films.
I think the next Bond film will be willing to tread into a bit of darkness, much like NTTD's tonal shifts with scenes like the SPECTRE killing and the opening scene with Safin. But at the same time I can also see a willingness to embrace stuff that's a bit more fantastical and even humorous, again much like NTTD and those later Craig movies. This is regardless of the actual story.
I could of course be wrong and we may get a hard course correction. It's also worth saying everything I've mentioned is very broad and leaves a lot of room. But ultimately I think there'll be some trace of Craig's films in there, as well as past Bond movies. It's just part of the evolution of the series.
Videogames aren't dark nowadays? Hm... Not sure about the musical thing either. It's like saying we live in an era of horror films. Yes, many are made (more so than musicals I'd say) but I don't know exactly what that has to do with Bond.
Anyway, the beauty of Bond is it can be colourful and have that undercurrent of darkness to it. In fact I'd argue it needs it. But really, it's all in perspective. If the next Bond film was breezy but had, say, a handful of very dark/brutal scenes or a particularly nasty villain, would the film as a whole be 'comedic' or 'dark'? Or to use a more specific example is GE a 'dark' or 'light' Bond film? I'd argue it has heavy elements of both seriousness and outlandishness to it, including some noticeably dark scenes.
I don't really know what they will (or supposedly what they 'should') do in this sense, and truth be told there are many different creative opportunities available to them. Much of it comes down to stuff we're not even discussing at the moment and will likely feed into the film itself (ie. who's the villain and their caper? What's the story? What will interest the filmmakers enough to draw upon for this Bond adventure?) I think that's ultimately more important to the people making these films in the early stages.
At the end of the day we'll see, but to me this doesn't quite feel like the circumstances for a hard course correction Bond film. That's very much the sort of circumstance where a consciously different route is taken out of necessity. The next film will have to be a fresh reinvention (or perhaps put better 'reintroduction') of Bond, but I can't see them looking at the Craig era as a whole and saying 'it needs to be the polar opposite of this'. As I said, GE wasn't the complete opposite of LTK even after the gap in the franchise, but it had that consciously different story direction. I think that's more likely the kind of thing we'll get.
It's probably worth asking what did work about the Craig era, or what might appeal to filmmakers this time round that could be reworked going into this next one. Heck, even SF readapted aspects of TWINE's story, so they constantly rework these ideas.
This isn’t Doctor Who, I don’t think they’ll change much about the films just because they’ve got a new actor. It will be a fresh coat of paint to give it that new car smell (if I may mix my metaphors), but underneath it will be business as usual, analysing what worked from the last one, what changes are needed, and maybe what seems to be working for other successful contemporary films.
I think they’ll try to add something of Fleming,but I don’t know what’s left that they haven’t used. They’ll really need a great villain this time, though, and a top actor to play him/her (might be nice to have a pair of villains this time?).
I agree, there's going to be personal stakes of some kind, that's why I said the film will be a breezy affair where you're along for the ride, but with a stick of humanity in the middle. But that's like saying "well, both films will have a climax, so they have a lot in common", It doesn't really say very much. The difference is that one (B25) has a story loaded with personal stakes from Bond and Madeline falling out, to Bond going rogue on an island, Bond and M bickering, B having a rivalry with another agent, Bond discovering he has a child, Bond getting revenge for the death of a friend (remember, the entire plot of LTK revolves around this one small aspect of (MOD EDIT - It’s NTTD, not )B25, for some perspective), and B26 in my opinion SHOULD be a relatively breezy mission based adventure with a modest emotional layer woven in as the film progresses. It would be a much more straightforward, tighter story where the emphasis is on escapism, fun and spectacle, and Bond himself is affable, charming and suave for the majority of the runtime. Just do away with realism and embrace Bond as a fantasy gentleman spy, but maintain a sense of humanity when it comes down to it. EON have admitted that it was Austin Powers that caused them to steer away from fantasy in the first place, because they were scared of being laughed at by the audience, and for the time that probably had a logic to it, but I just don't know if it still makes sense to be so self conscious anymore. Times have moved on, and I think audiences today would happily embrace a little silliness, at least if Superman is any judge next July.
I agree, that’s why I gave (very basic) examples about what they could do and mentioned how it might not be a million miles away from what we saw in the Craig films (and how these ideas are reworked anyway).
Bond doesn’t really go rouge on an island in NTTD, he’s just retired, so that’s not really a part of personal stakes. Apart from that Bond has conflicts with M in other Bond movies, and supporting characters die during pivotal moments, and Bond even has mild antagonism with certain characters all in the same film, along with other doubts and conflicts (ie. GF, TLD etc). It’s just about what’s compelling and in character for Bond. But I’m not going to harp on about this as I feel it’s a discussion that’s been well worn now :)
I really don’t think Superman will mean much for Bond.
We’ll see. I think to some extent we as fans (and individuals) have to understand that not everything we want in a Bond film is a) going to happen in practice and b) might not actually create the best Bond film anyway. It might not even be what a majority of audiences respond to dependent on the film. And we’re talking in hypotheticals and broad strokes so far removed from anything like specifics of story/creative choices that it’s a bit meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It’s a bit like getting an algorithm to determine what a future Bond film should be like without any specifics or film creating process - it should be breezy because of film A that’s been released and did well, people want a more humorous/gentlemanly Bond or whatever because x did well etc. But that’s not quite how these films are made. It’s not that simple.
I’m sure there’ll be spectacle and fun in Bond 26. It wouldn’t be much of a Bond film if it didn’t embrace that (even NTTD had Paloma, the Cuba chase, Matera etc).
Yes, maybe Blofeld and Spectre built up properly, seems to be a general idea.
I know that SP came close with Irma Bunt and a rouge CIA agent, Charlotte York. A female villain is a shakeup that the film series needs. Also, it wouldn't hurt if she's shown to be evil right away. A lot of Bond stories with female villains have that be a twist, with females being evil. Examples: The World Is Not Enough, Carte Blanche, Hammerhead. AUF is one of the other few that has a female villain who's known as a villain right away.
It’s frankly astonishing—and, dare I say, egregious—that we’re long overdue for a truly great female villain in the Bond franchise. Can you believe that the entire Craig era didn’t gift us a single femme fatale pulling the strings or delivering a performance so electrifying it lingers in cinematic memory? It’s borderline outrageous.
Here’s my plea to whoever is masterminding the next era: bring us a female baddie with real gravitas. Personally, I think Margot Robbie would be sensational in the role. She’s proven her ability to inhabit morally ambiguous, chaotic characters with aplomb—just look at I, Tonya or the manic brilliance of Harley Quinn. But here’s the key: give her a role with substance, something layered, something she can really chew on. Not just a superficial glossy part, but a deeply textured character oozing menace and charisma.
I’m talking full-on femme fatale energy with a splash of that batshit unpredictability she’s so good at channeling. Robbie has the chops to deliver a Bond villain who’s as mesmerising as she is terrifying, and I truly believe she’d kill it (pun intended, darling). Let’s make this happen.
As much as I would love Cate Blanchett and Margot Robbie to become Bond villains, I think that they are too big for EON. Both would want some creative control.
No sorry: I mean who are a couple- as in a man and wife pair of villains, that kind of thing.
That's an awesome idea.
So like TSWLM but with the main villain instead of the Bond girl? I like it!
For me the revenge angle is such a minor part of TSWLM, that I actually forget it. I'd like that angle to be the main story.
Incredible how if TSWLM were made as Craig's last film, that plot line would be competing with about 6 others for space. It's so much more effective when the story beats are given the room to breathe.